On 13/02/15 12:16, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 13/02/2015 11:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/02/15 11:23, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 13/02/2015 09:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 22:26, Tim w wrote:
On 12/02/2015 21:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 19:50, Tim w wrote:
On 12/02/2015 18:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/15 18:21, john james wrote:
Now - tell me again why UKIP (or any other fringe party) are
somehow
worse that all this?

Because they would produce a much more spectacular shambles if the
voters were ever actually stupid enough to let them run the
country

And you know this how?


It's a self evident fact. They are a bunch of clowns at best. Nasty
fools at worst.

Ah., so its really just a case of pure bigotry on your part with no
supporting evidence of anything?


meh.

There's tons of evidence. I don't have to document it for you just
because you play dumb. Try googling 'UKIP embarrassment' for folly,
then
'ukip policy' for something more nasty. They are ****s.


plenty of made up stories sure.

But that's really only evidence for how worried the MSM are.

Conspiracy theories again.

Some conspiracy theories are in fact true.

Very, very rarely. That UKIP is the only political party not to attract
sleazy politicians and that any evidence to the contrary is fabricated
by the media is certainly not one of them.

Te theory dpesnt say they dont attract sleaze. Indeed we suspect many
sleazeballs join because they are paid to discredit the party. The
theory says that sleaze is actively ignored in all the other parties and
actively 'discovered' in UKIP and made to look far worse than it is by
dint of an MSM that is largely controlled by the same broad interests
that control the main political parties.


Or do you believe Nixon was entirely innocent?

One of the very few that proved to be true.

That Rotherham happened just by accident?

To be a conspiracy theory, the theory has to exist before the conspiracy
is uncovered. That didn't happen in this case.

That 911, was a mistake by air traffic controllers?

That would, itself, be a conspiracy theory. I certainly don't believe
that the towers were felled by controlled demolition, which is the main
conspiracy theory for 9/11.

That Arthur Andersen were whiter than white?

I think they were quite possibly incompetent, rather than willing
conspirators. However, that also fails as a conspiracy theory as there
was no theory before the Enron accounting fraud was uncovered.


You never had them as your auditors did you? Guilty as hell m8. They
actively encouraged pure fraud.

Long before Enron surfaced it was all known as was Enron.

What you need to consider is that 99% of all news that you read, is not
nbew2s at all.

It is carefully slanted propaganda designed to sell you one product or
another, whether that be wind,mills or the Labour party.

Lets say a road floods in Somerset. That's the fact.

What the 'news' will do is
- show how its all down to 'global warming'
- show how 'windmills will fix it'
- show how its all down to tory cronyism as the road wasn't maintained
properly by the (tory) council
- show how UKIP are idiots because in a jokey aside a UKIP (but ex-tory)
counsellor blames it on the biblical sin of homosexuality
- find some demented female to complain her kids can't get to school
because a tory council wont put on state sponsored 4x4s to wade through
the floods.
- find a green to blame it all on 4x4s...

etc etc.

Its called building and emotional narrative, or agitptrop, or simply
marketing.

It consists in working out the impression you want to give, and then
accumulating a few actual facts and then spinning them into propaganda
to make them deliver the impression you want.

If you dont understand that this is what the MSM does/is paid to do full
time, then you are more naive than I ever imagined.








--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll